9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of detention order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.
Analysis: 1. Detention Order Impugned: The judgment addresses a petition challenging a detention order under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The order of detention in question was identical to another case previously decided by the court, where it was held to be bad. Consequently, the court directed the state to release the petitioner immediately. 2. Detention Order Details: The detention order against the petitioner was issued on May 3, 1971, under Section 3 of the Act. The order stated the necessity to prevent the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State or public order. The District Magistrate signed and issued the order, which was subsequently approved by the State Government and the Central Government. 3. Legal Process Followed: The judgment outlines the timeline of events following the detention order. The petitioner was arrested on May 5, 1971, served with the grounds of detention, and his case was presented before the Advisory Board. Despite the petitioner's representation and subsequent considerations by the State Government and Advisory Board, the detention order was confirmed on July 21, 1971. 4. Contentions and Arguments: The petitioner's case was contested by the respondents, and arguments were presented regarding the alleged casualness and lack of specificity in the detention order. The petitioner's counsel contended that the use of the word "or" in the order indicated ambiguity, but the court rejected this argument based on a previous judgment. Additionally, the petitioner claimed mala fide intent behind the detention order, but the court found no evidence to support this claim. 5. Court Decision: The court, led by the majority opinion, dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the detention order. The judgment concludes that the petition fails, and the writ petition is consequently dismissed based on the majority opinion of the judges involved in the case.
|
